If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I disagree that the derby (or the qual) for that matter should be designed with the newbie in mind. Field trials by their very design will never appeal to the masses because most (not all) people want far more instant gratification than field trials are designed to deliver (hence the proliferation of all the other retriever games). On the other hand, field trials will never go away either because there will always be some (not most) retriever people who want to compete with their dogs against the very best even if that means going home most weekends defeated by superior performances. As applied to the derby, I think judges should be concerned with putting out very challenging marks without regard to whether that appeals to the newbie or not. With the quality of the dogs, I don't think judges have the luxury most weekend of throwing a lolly pop first series just so everyone gets the first two birds clean. I don't personally think focusing on challenging marks requires retired guns or triples but wouldn't have a problem running under a judge who chose to use retired guns or triples in setting up their tests on their weekend to judge.

You really think this sport is growing??? I go to EE and see the same names at the same trials for the past few years. I am all about competition. However, in my opinion this sport seems to be for people that have the means (money) to have pro train their dogs or amateur who has multiple dogs and can afford to train and enter enough events to compete. Add triples to the derby, were does it stop and it becomes where the guy with one pup that he trains himself cannot compete with all pro trained bullets that the pro brings to the fight. Please do not think I am degrading folks that have the means play this game at the highest level. I already devote more money and time than I have to play and if I had more of both I would put all I could in. The point I am making is the game is tough enough as is...don't take the guy with one dog out of this game by making it harder. I agree with Mr. Shih and some other...they seem to set up derbies where everyone can compete and the best dog that day wins!!!

Originally Posted by gdog

I disagree that the derby (or the qual) for that matter should be designed with the newbie in mind. Field trials by their very design will never appeal to the masses because most (not all) people want far more instant gratification than field trials are designed to deliver (hence the proliferation of all the other retriever games). On the other hand, field trials will never go away either because there will always be some (not most) retriever people who want to compete with their dogs against the very best even if that means going home most weekends defeated by superior performances. As applied to the derby, I think judges should be concerned with putting out very challenging marks without regard to whether that appeals to the newbie or not. With the quality of the dogs, I don't think judges have the luxury most weekend of throwing a lolly pop first series just so everyone gets the first two birds clean. I don't personally think focusing on challenging marks requires retired guns or triples but wouldn't have a problem running under a judge who chose to use retired guns or triples in setting up their tests on their weekend to judge.

I do think that we need to have a place for entry level persons to enter FT - that being the derby or the Q.
I am not opposed to O/H Derbies, although my club would not have one because we rarely have enough dogs for a derby with pros. But, like the O/H Qual (which we also do not have), I think that clubs should be given the option.
I think that - at the end of a day - you need to have a winner, and like Greg says, you cannot - given the quality of the dogs today - give away any birds.

BUT with
- good grounds
- good judges
- good help

I think that you can have wide open marks that create plenty of separation. I know, because, I ran a few of them last year. But, it's a tough proposition. I remember several of the derbies that I ran were against pros with 6+ dogs on their trucks.

I never said the sport was growing. I did say there will always be field trials because there will always be some people that want to compete against the best and can take the fact that they will lose most weekends. I believe that to be true. I was once President of the Nebraska Dog and Hunt Club in Nebraska and tried everything to make field trials appealing to more people and finally came to the realization that it was a futile effort. Why????? because most people want more immediate gratification than field trials will provide and those people will move to other venues where ribbons and recognition are easier and viewed as more in reach. This will happen whether clubs put on owner handler derbies or not in my opinion.

Now I am just rambling but with the number of quality dogs today and most everyone says the dogs are better trained today, let move the derby age back to 18-20 month age limit. Just saying, its not uncommon for dogs to win a Q at 18-20 months and some competing in AA that early. So make it a true derby to evaluate just marking for young dogs. Then you would make QAA an AKC recognized accomplishment...just my thoughts if I were King for a day.

I am sure the little problem of needing 10 dogs in a derby would prevent an O/H Derby in most areas.

It would for the Rocky Mountain Retriever club. We have a hard time getting 10 dogs. But, again, I am not opposed to other clubs having an O/H Derby, just as they have an O/H Qual (which we do not have). It's about choice.

I am sure the little problem of needing 10 dogs in a derby would prevent an O/H Derby in most areas.

It certainly would and that problem was created by RFTN, not the AKC, by starting the "Derby List". The AKC does not care how many dogs are in a minor stake. Derbys can and have been held with less than 10.

I am sure the little problem of needing 10 dogs in a derby would prevent an O/H Derby in most areas.

I think that logic may be invalid. Maybe you are thinking of the status quo and thinking that if pros weren't allowed, there would be a shortage of dogs. But I'm thinking that if pros weren't allowed in an OH Derby, more ams would enter. At least that would be true if the advertising was good. Tell the clubs that hold HT to email their members that there was an OH Derby and see who signs up. Might get more volunteer help, too.

Edit: my husband suggests calling it the "Rank Amateur" Derby...or...the "Hope and a Prayer" Derby, both of which apply to us! Just ignore him, that's what I do.

I think with triples you get away from marking as primary importance and focus on trained concepts like selection. I think derbies already have too much focus on straight lines and technical concepts. With good terrain you can pick two good spots to place birds and avoid concept marks where it seems you waste one of the marks setting up your long bird. By wasting go birds you then only have 4 marks to judge.